WASHINGTON -- The U.S.Supreme Court appeared generally sympathetic Wednesday to an evangelical group's argument that it had a constitutional right to offer Bible study and prayer as an after-school activity for young children on the same basis as any other activity held on the premises of an upstate New York public school.
The federal appeals court in Manhattan last year upheld the Milford Central School's decision to exclude the group, the Good News Club, ruling that the exclusion was based not on its religious views but on a permissible decision not to have "religious instruction and prayer" as an after-school activity.
But the policy amounted to censorship in a broad community forum, Thomas Marcelle, the club's lawyer, told the justices Wednesday. "We're not asking for unique access, just equal access," he said.
The case, Good News Club vs. Milford Central School, has drawn wide attention because of its implications not only for religion in the public schools but also for a range of questions about the extent to which public institutions can, or must, open their doors to religious organizations on an equal basis with all others.
There was much about the case that was unclear Wednesday, including considerable confusion over how to characterize the activities of the Good News Club, part of a nationwide movement that seeks to "evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ," according to a brief filed by its parent organization, the Child Evangelism Fellowship. The argument appeared to underscore the difficulty of drawing a firm line between religious worship and activities that are simply suffused with a religious point of view.
Justice David H. Souter was the most openly skeptical of the Bible club's arguments and asked the most probing questions about what occurred in a group of two dozen 6-to-12-year-olds who sing religious songs and learn Bible lessons.
"It sounds like Sunday school," Souter told Marcelle. He said that while the Supreme Court's precedents gave college students the right to conduct worship services at public universities, those precedents did not necessarily authorize the same activity for young children.
While the Supreme Court has allowed various religious activities on public school property outside school hours, it has not addressed the role of religion as an after-school activity for young children.
In a key decision on ballot issues Wednesday, the court unanimously struck down Missouri's so-called "scarlet letter" law that required federal candidates who oppose term limits to be labeled as such on Missouri ballots.
The Missouri amendment killed by the court stated that next to the names of incumbents who had opposed term limits would be the phrase: "Disregarded voter instructions." Next to the names of challengers who opposed them would have been the words: "Declined to pledge support for term limits."
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said "it seems clear that the adverse labels handicap candidates at the most crucial stage in the election process -- the instant before the vote is cast."
Separately, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that a state "simply lacks the power to impose any conditions on the election of senators and representatives, save the neutral provisions as to the time, place and manner of elections."
The law passed in 1996 when Missouri voters approved it as an amendment to the state constitution.
In one other major issue, the court considered Wednesday whether some federal spending limits on political parties are an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
The case arose from radio ads paid for by the Colorado Republican Party, which claims it had the right to fund those ads and more as legitimate expressions of political speech.